most accidents have little in common with each other. but I think there are similarities, specifically Chile's willingness to reach out to experts around the world for help. that being said, I think the reports of america not willing to reach out for advice on the BP disaster were exagerrated.
Yeah you're going to have to change it up a bit to make it believable. Like, if they were cooking in a kitchen and they were all trapped in the kitchen. No, I don't think they would survive. :grin:
LOL, I just realize they already had their version of the Chile Miners... <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/l5I1q4KhKNU?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/l5I1q4KhKNU?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Did anyone see Michael Moore on Larry King last night? He may have some good ideas for his films and all...but my overall impression of him from what he was saying is he is an idiot. He was trying to compare this land-based disaster and how quickly it was resolved to the mile-down sea-based oil disaster. He was talking like just because Chile was able to drill a hole and rescue these men with little issues...that the US should have been able to take over and plug the oil leak much sooner with our president taking a lead role...just because were the USA with the best technology around. There are so many differences between the two situations that it's laughable what he was saying. How can you compare the two like that? I just thought he was way off base with those comments and sounded like a naive teenager or something. He really sounded stupid imo. Even Larry King was looking at him like "this guy is whack".
Lessons can always be learned, but I don't think that addresses what he said and my point about it. Apparently... per this article from Yahoo ... the mine will be shut down, others have also been shut down, 27j of the 33 miners have sued the company for their negligence, top regulators have been fired, another who was hurt previous to the collapse is also suing, blame for damages is being thrown around... I guess in those ways it is similar. I see plenty of 'b****ing' going on there too. I guess I just don't see this as a talking point for "SEE USA, THAT IS HOW YOU HANDLE A SITUATION LIKE THIS." A tragedy turned feel good story. They stuck with it, and got the guys out. The rest is just details, and I see little to no comparison to America's handling of anything, nor do I see some shining example for how something like this should go. Bad things happen. We deal as best we can, and hopefully everyone learns from these situations. eos. here is the text from the article, per clutchfans protocol
I didnt follow the politics of it all, but it sure did seem like they were trying to re-direct the flow for a long time, rather than simply plugging it up. If that's the case, then someone did need to intervene.
you're mainly refering to the difference in difficulty of doing it by land vs in the ocean, which i agree with...but i think the BP disaster should have been dealt with much faster. The fact that it took so long makes it appear a lot more difficult to deal with than it was...therefore the comparison between the two seems even greater, which is why his comments appear more foolish than they are.
Yea...it's a little bit like comparing apples and oranges imo. I think Chile's president made a jab at the US in some of his comments like if the Chileans had been dealing with the oil spill...it would have been stopped much earlier. I think Michael Moore was implying the same thing. I just don't think that is the case and that is because there were no real plans in place to deal with the oil disaster contingency. Their contingency was to say they thought it would never happen so they didn't feel they had to prepare for it. And, we all know our government agency involved in oversight of the oil drilling was in bed with them...so they basically had their thumbs up their asses the whole time. Obviously, Obama and his government are going to get their share of the blame on the oil disaster. But, given the way poor planning and contingencies in place, could the oil had been stopped sooner if Chile was in charge? I seriously doubt it. However, Chile might have been more likely to accept outside help and that is where the criticism of Obama comes in...because they turned down a lot of help. Who knows? Maybe Chile could have stopped it sooner if they were in charge? Our country feels like it is crumbling around all of us. I just felt Michael Moore was making a lot of statements out of his ass last night when he tried to compare the two...and it kind of got under my skin. Sure, it's easy to second guess everything now. In summary, "Chi" "Chi" "Chi" "Le" "Le" "Le"!!! And, Obama could learn a lot from the Chilean President on how to handle disasters (from what Moore and others are saying). Everyone seems to know best after-the-fact.
In chile's defense, the rescue was very very detailed and specific. They went all out to make sure they were kept sane and in good health. They though of everything really. Perhaps had they handled the BP disaster it would have still taken a while, but i think if they showed the same around the clock work ethic and no expense spared approach, then maybe they would have at least done a better job of containing it. BP was clearly slacking.
I haven't read the whole thread so idk if its been posted.. But apparently one of the miners had a mistress and when he was being rescued BOTH his wife and mistress were waiting for him up top.. LOL
it's been posted but that's not the real story. He and his wife were separated and he was with another woman.
